One criticism of the Chautauqua Lake Watershed and Management Alliance board over the past couple of years has been the board’s lack of public accountability.

That has changed with recent bylaw changes that pack the board with town and village officials as well as representatives from lake agencies. Approved in October, the new alliance board will consist of 18 members: three county seats, a seat for each of the five lakeside towns and four lakeside villages, and two seats each for the Chautauqua Lake Association, Chautauqua Lake Partnership and Chautauqua Watershed Conservancy.

We have agreed in the past with the idea that lakeside town and village officials need to be more involved in decisions involving Chautauqua Lake. There will be some who disagree with having lake agencies involved in the alliance board, but it’s better to have the agencies at the table involved in lake maintenance discussions than it is to have them fighting against each other.

If there is one criticism of the new board makeup of the Chautauqua Lake Watershed and Management Alliance, it’s that few people know about it. At first all Chautauqua Lake Watershed and Management Alliance board meetings were open to the public. Then, as disagreements from meetings began spilling out to the public the decision was made to have alternate open and closed sessions every other month. Then, starting in January 2025, meetings have been work sessions that are closed to the public. While we understand that the disagreements being played out publicly could be embarrassing, it also makes it difficult for the public to follow what the county is doing on the lake through the alliance and its partner organizations.

Take, for example, the decision to remake the board. No one knew about it unless one reads the minutes of alliance board meetings or paid close attention to public statements by County Executive PJ Wendel that we’ve reported on. To say such a milestone change was made quietly is an understatement.

In our opinion, the newly constituted board should take one more action to enhance its public accountability by reopening meetings to the public. There are too many public officials on the board to have meetings be closed to the public. If necessary the board should impose the same types of controls over public comment that are often seen during local government meetings.

There has been a lot of criticism this summer over a perceived lack of action regarding Chautauqua Lake. That criticism ends up being a one-sided conversation when it comes to Chautauqua Lake because closing Chautauqua Lake Watershed and Management Alliance board meetings keeps one side of the conversation on mute.

It’s time for this failed closed meeting experiment to end.